SHIKALAMBATLA LAXMINARAYANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition was to the order dtd. 5/10/2016 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, in the appeal bearing No.F2/E3/10107 of 2013 filed under Sec. 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. By order dtd. 15/2/2018 passed in this Writ Petition, it was noted that the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, revealed that no notice had been issued to the petitioners in relation to the subject appeal as they were not residing in the village and status-quo with regard to the entries in the revenue records was directed to be maintained. This interim order was extended until further orders on 15/3/2018.

(2.) I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by respondent No.11 in the Writ Petition to vacate the aforestated interim order. Heard Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, State of Telangana and Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for respondent No.11, the vacate stay petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Sri Gunaranjan would inform this Court that the 11th respondent is the sole contesting respondent as she has already purchased the interests of respondent Nos.5 to 10 and 12.

(3.) Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the case was taken up for enquiry in terms of the directions given by the High Court in Writ Petition No.27980 of 1997, vide order dtd. 17/3/2004. By the said order the High Court set aside the order dtd. 22/9/1997 of the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, and the appeal was remanded for consideration afresh by the appellate authority. It is however an admitted fact that pursuant to the aforestated remand order, the appellate authority failed to serve notices upon the petitioners herein, who were the respondents in the said appeal, as they were no longer residing in the village. However, it may be noted that though the remand order was passed as long back as in the year 2004, the appeal seems to have been taken up for hearing long thereafter. No steps seem to have been taken by the appellate authority to effect substituted service of notice upon the unofficial respondents in the appeal. In effect, the order under challenge was passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, behind the back of the petitioners, who were the unofficial respondents therein. It is, therefore, in clear violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. That was the reason why the interim order was passed on 15/2/2018 directing status quo to be maintained with regard to the entries in the revenue records.